Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

reply to post by FDNY343


"It is just a tiny fraction of the US population that believes the same as you...",
--what is that saying about never doubting a small dedicated group of people making big changes in the world? Perhaps you should tell that to the scary brown guys who hijacked those planes.

"...and when I turn off my computer at night, you all disappear."
--judging from the amount of time you spend posting on this matter and your screen name I highly doubt this is true.

"Lot's of words, no real substance. Anyway...

I have never not once brought the 9/11 CR up in my postings here without someone bringing it up first. I simply explained why it did not contain the accounts of 7WTC. Same reason they didn't address any of the other dozen or some buildings that were damaged/destroyed."
--I am not interested why you brought it up. You brought it up and I illustrated how you were wrong. It is very simple. If you cannot wrap your head around the inherent conflict of interest in the 9-11 Commission Report and how this conflict would render the outcome questionable, just say so. I would be glad to discuss how not using proper codes of ethics in an investigation like this raises red flags.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
Why must WE (General public who have been satisfied with the NIST and other investigations) pay YOU to do another one?

You don't, I'm just saying don't frikkin complain about us doing nothing if you don't have the funds to put up for it either, hypocrites.

And I paid for the NIST report too and I'm NOT satisfied with it! Neither are any of your other tax-paying friends here!

So you're complaining that a government that you think potentially murdered your fellow citizens and covered it up is refusing to do a proper investigation of its own actions?

And your plan to thwart this monstrous conspiracy is to... chat on the internet about how unfair it is.

Forget the arguments about what actually happened on 9/11 for a moment. That course of action doesn't strike me as likely to meet with success. Indeed it's so self evidently doomed that I wonder whether your convictions are at all serious.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So you're complaining that a government that you think potentially murdered your fellow citizens and covered it up is refusing to do a proper investigation of its own actions?

Obviously I would like an independent investigation, but if you look at the post I was responding to, the poster was insinuating that the public who paid for the report was completely satisfied, which is obviously as false as to say no one is here arguing with you today.

And your plan to thwart this monstrous conspiracy is to... chat on the internet about how unfair it is.

It's better than not saying anything, or worse yet, trolling forums for the sole purpose of getting into angsty arguments with people because you think you already know it all.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Actually, most of us do not just chat about it on sites like this. We chat about it at church. We chat about it at school. We chat about it at work. We chat about it at the bar. We chat about it at the WTC site.

We are chatting with many people. And they chat with others. Its like that old shampoo commercial...and so on an so on and so on.

Soon our numbers will outnumber yours. How long is soon? No one knows.

Until then the battle continues.

Originally posted by Game_Over
"If you haven't even seen the many pictures of the WTC 7's damage (yes, only one segment of damage couldn't be captured because of all the smoke and the fact that no one thought to BRING A CAMERA into a disaster zone when they were still trying to recover from the collapses), I have to assume that you are, in fact, not knowledgeable about everything having to do with 9/11."
-- Let's think about your statement here. You are trying to imply that only one segment of the building was damaged and we couldn't see the rest of the damage that you're just positive was there, even though you can't see it either. See how funny that is? "Truthers" are often accused of using videos as evidence but here you are using a lack of video as evidence. And is it indeed a "fact" that no one thought to BRING A CAMERA into a disaster zone? Do you really believe this? Do you really believe that no one thought to bring a camera downtown to film the aftermath of the biggest event in US history because they were still trying to recover from the collapses? Seriously, just stop the madness. I tried to be nice to you, but man, you are making it really hard.

You have misread. I said only one segment of the damage was not caught on camera. All the other damage was. I also didn't say that no one brought a camera into the disaster zone, but I meant that no one brought them into the debris just to take a picture of the smoking WTC 7. Apologies for not being clear enough. I get all sorts of crap because I make small mistakes like that, and then people start assuming to high heaven. This is the first place where I have to explain every single thing I say in the tiniest of details just to be understood.

reply to post by Game_Over


Well it took 9 yrs to get architects for the truth over 1200 so dont hold your breath! Then you still have 10's of thousands of architects and engineers world wide who laugh at you to change their minds!!!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Then you still have 10's of thousands of architects and engineers world wide who laugh at you to change their minds!!!!!

Even if that's true, the people who react just by laughing at others are usually too emotionally immature to do anything productive in society anyway and no doubt have some status quo job. So it'd be 10's of thousands of worthless to stop more mature individuals from conducting the investigation without them.


The real problem here is money and legal authority. It isn't just the numbers anymore because there are more than enough people on board with our sentiments to start something.

reply to post by wmd_2008



Well it took 9 yrs to get architects for the truth over 1200 so dont hold your breath! Then you still have 10's of thousands of architects and engineers world wide who laugh at you to change their minds!!!!!
--what is your point. Years ago, you would have said none would agree. Would it matter to you if it were a million architects? Or would that not be enough? Or do you have to wait until everyone says something is true for you to believe it?

I am a visionary. I am not worried about how long it takes for the truth that the official story is a lie to be accepted as fact. We are not in this battle because it is easy.

reply to post by Varemia


"You have misread. I said only one segment of the damage was not caught on camera. All the other damage was. I also didn't say that no one brought a camera into the disaster zone, but I meant that no one brought them into the debris just to take a picture of the smoking WTC 7."
--And why didn't they? All I here about is the fact that they were talking about its collapse ALL DAY. So why wouldn't they want to capture it? I won't get into the act that you are using a lack of evidence as evidence.


"Apologies for not being clear enough. I get all sorts of crap because I make small mistakes like that, and then people start assuming to high heaven. This is the first place where I have to explain every single thing I say in the tiniest of details just to be understood."
--And it won't be the last. All we have to judge you here are your words. Make them count. Take a moment and reread your post before you send it. I have had many statements of mine torn apart for small mistakes too...it stings...and you learn. Just like finding out the official story is a lie...it stings...and you learn.

Originally posted by Game_Over
And why didn't they? All I here about is the fact that they were talking about its collapse ALL DAY. So why wouldn't they want to capture it? I won't get into the act that you are using a lack of evidence as evidence.

Because they didn't, and I'm not using it as evidence. I'm saying they got all the rest of the damage documented with picture and video. Only the center of the building was not captured on camera by anyone on the South side, and the evidence which points to there being damage is that a few firefighters documented it in their reports. They talked about a 20 story chunk that looked scooped out of the building. It's not that it's a lack of evidence, it's that it explains the fall of the building (ie. the direction it fell and partly some of the ease) and can only be denied if you completely ignore the evidence.

reply to post by Varemia


If you're relying on video and photographic evidence, please consider how many are fake, and answer one simple question.

Why would any of them be fake?

"Because they didn't, and I'm not using it as evidence. I'm saying they got all the rest of the damage documented with picture and video. Only the center of the building was not captured on camera by anyone on the South side, and the evidence which points to there being damage is that a few firefighters documented it in their reports."
-- So your firefighters put it in a report that there was some damage. Berry Jennings was murdered because he was in the building working for the OEM when explosions rocked the building and said it on camera. I'll take your firefighter reports though...as long as you'll take mine who said they heard explosions too.

"They talked about a 20 story chunk that looked scooped out of the building. It's not that it's a lack of evidence, it's that it explains the fall of the building (ie. the direction it fell and partly some of the ease) and can only be denied if you completely ignore the evidence."
--So it looked like it was scooped out or it was scooped out? I understand it explains the direction it fell, that's why it is so important for you to accept it. But its not true. They did not build the OEM and have all those tenants in an unsafe building. The diesel generators did not contribute to the collapse. The debris from WTC 1 and WTC 2 did not contribute to the collapse. The fires did not contribute to the collapse. They knew the building was coming down that day early on. How did they know? Because they were going to demolish it. I'll leave you to figure out how they did though.

reply to post by Game_Over


You can't be sure of that though. You don't have a picture of the South side being undamaged, and there are no testimonies from anyone saying that it was fine on the South side. Basically, you are going by your gut and your beliefs. I don't buy it.

reply to post by Varemia


"You can't be sure of that though. You don't have a picture of the South side being undamaged, and there are no testimonies from anyone saying that it was fine on the South side. Basically, you are going by your gut and your beliefs. I don't buy it."
-- I don't care if you don't buy it. Just shows your ignorance which I am denying.

But if you want to avoid listening to my gut and beliefs, why don't you address the on-camera testimony of Barry Jennings describing what happened in building 7 that day? He worked for the Office of Emergency Management. I would link to the video but I'm done babysitting. So, there is video evidence straight from the mouth of someone who was there and has been murdered for talking about it and you are going to tell me he lied? He was mistaken? Tell me? Where are your little reports now? See how they don't matter? People died that day...people have died since that day because of this...and more people in other countries are dying right now as you sit there and type about it.

Go and do some research on Barry and come back here and lets discuss what you think?

reply to post by Varemia


Here's an eye witness.

Why is his testimony any less valid than that of the eye witnesses saying they saw a plane?
No Second Plane, It was a bomb.

How many more like this guy are out there who we haven't seen?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Varemia

 

Here's an eye witness.

Why is his testimony any less valid than that of the eye witnesses saying they saw a plane?
No Second Plane, It was a bomb.

How many more like this guy are out there who we haven't seen?

Um, perhaps it's because the amount of corroborating reports that say there was a plane outweigh a few people saying they didn't see anything. You know this if you have ever heard what people say when they describe something like a car crash. The details will be all jumbled up, but usually the stories that match up with details from other peoples' stories will create the picture of what happened. Unless of course you believe that every single person who saw the plane is being paid by the government. That's the usual cop-out.

reply to post by Varemia


Ah, so if I was a criminal banker with unlimited funds, all it would take to sway public opinion would be to pay a majority of witnesses?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by Yankee451


I suppose that's possible, but without a shred of proof, that not even a single person has revealed that they were paid to say they saw a plane after ten years, it makes you wonder!

I mean, your argument is literally that what you say is the truth because you can just say that every person who contradicts you is a liar and that all the footage is faked and that all the audio was tampered with and that everyone who still supports the evidence is being paid by the government... That's kind of crazy, no offense!